Navasard Limited v Vasily Ivanov, Serialy

WIPO Case No. D2024-0480

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Navasard Limited v. Vasily Ivanov, Serialy

Case No. D2024-0480

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Navasard Limited, Cyprus, represented internally.

The Respondent is Vasily Ivanov, Serialy, Kyrgyzstan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <1xbet.host> (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2024. On February 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 2, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 6, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 9, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 29, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 4, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on March 8, 2024. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a limited liability company offering sports betting services, including its international online sports betting brand “1XBET” established in 2007. The Complainant owns various word and figurative trademarks for or containing the term “1XBET” (“Complainant’s Trademark”).

The relevant trademark registrations include, inter alia;

- European Union Trademark (“EUTM”) Registration No. 013914254 for registered on

July 27, 2015 in Classes 35, 41, and 42; and
-	EUTM Registration No. 014227681 for 1XBET registered on September 21, 2015, in Classes 35, 41,
and 42.

The Panel notes that the Complainant’s Trademark is fully incorporated in its domain name <1xbet.com> which was registered on September 1, 2006, and resolves to the Complainant’s website (“Complainant’s Website”).

The Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on May 20, 2023. At the time of filing of the
Complaint and at the time of the decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website (the
“Respondent’s Website”) displaying the Complainant’s Trademark, with the heading “official website 1xbet”

and claiming to have weblinks to a mirror site of the Complainant's Website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s Trademark.

(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent

is potentially illegally using the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of re-selling it at a profit by taking
advantage of its confusing similarity with the Complainant’s Trademark. Moreover, the Respondent does not
intend to make legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name as there is no actual offering of goods and
services, and it is not making any commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

(c) It appears the Complainant considers the Respondent’s Website to be a case of lack of active use of the Disputed Domain Name or “passive holding”, neither of which prevents a finding of bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

(iii)      the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of two trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Complainant’s Trademark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The only difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s Trademark is the generic

Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.host”, which may be disregarded. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

page 4

The Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complainant as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies, WIPO Case No. D2009-14371437; and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403).

The Panel agrees with the Complainant that there is no evidence to show that the Respondent has trademark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name.

It is clear from the content of the Respondent’s Website that the Respondent adopted the Complainant’s originates from, the Complainant.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the bona fide offering of goods or services or be regarded as legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as in this case the impersonation or passing off by the Respondent as the Complainant using the Complainant’s Trademark, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Panel does not consider this to be a case of passive holding, as the Disputed Domain Name resolved to
the Respondent’s Website displaying the Complainant’s Trademark and direct references to the
Complainant's Website (among other content). However, it is difficult to conceive of any plausible use of the
Disputed Domain Name that would amount to good faith use, given that it has incorporated the
Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety. Given the publicity and reputation of the “1XBET” brand and the
content of the Respondent’s Website, the Respondent must have been fully aware of the existence of the
Complainant’s rights in the Complainant’s Trademark when the Respondent registered and used the
Disputed Domain Name.

The Respondent has intentionally registered the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s Website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ Trademark. See section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. As discussed above, the Respondent lacks any

rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (see Washington Mutual, Inc. v. Ashley Khong, WIPO Case No. D2005-0740). Further, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s contentions and has provided no evidence of its actual or contemplated good faith use of the Disputed Domain Name.

passing off as the Complainant using the Complainant's Trademarks constitutes bad faith.	Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as in this case the impersonation or and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name, <1xbet.host> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Gabriela Kennedy/
Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: March 22, 2024